It is not that GA should not count but ground targets should not be factored into the equation.

When someone can have a higher PR with a lower win rate and survival rating than a player with a higher win rate and survival rating then

there is something wrong with the concept.

But hey if that is how you feel important and it satisfies you and validates you as an individual.

So be it...I could care less.

I disagree. GTs are a part of this game, right from the start. Why do you think only airplane kills and airplane damage should count?

It would be like an NFL team saying field goals shouldn't count as points in the games, and a team that won 9-7 with 3 field goals wasn't a legit winner because field goal kickers play "their own cancerous game" as Bandet says and aren't "real" football players. Which is ridiculous.

I disagree. GTs are a part of this game, right from the start. Why do you think only airplane kills and airplane damage should count?

It would be like an NFL team saying field goals shouldn't count as points in the games, and a team that won 9-7 with 3 field goals wasn't a legit winner because field goal kickers play "their own cancerous game" as Bandet says and aren't "real" football players. Which is ridiculous.

I disagree. GTs are a part of this game, right from the start. Why do you think only airplane kills and airplane damage should count?

It would be like an NFL team saying field goals shouldn't count as points in the games, and a team that won 9-7 with 3 field goals wasn't a legit winner because field goal kickers play "their own cancerous game" as Bandet says and aren't "real" football players. Which is ridiculous.

Having GA aircraft be relevant would be like if the NFL team decided to have a role on the field be designed specifically for someone who was otherwise not skilled enough to do anything relevant, and was just there so he could have fun. Which is ridiculous.

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.

Because it's played on your feet, which is actually the exact reasoning behind the name of the sport.

Soccer is called football because it's played with your feet.

Rest of the world? Meet America.

The denotation of a term, relies on its baptismal instance... sometimes this happens with terraced invention, sometimes its gradual. Hesperus and Phosphorus - the evening star and the morning star - were thought to be different objects (Venus) at one time, and even maintained different meanings of the same object throughout antiquity. As we became more understanding of our local solar neighbors, we understand those two terms to reference, and mean the same thing... at different times of the day.

The point being, playing a semantic game is not going to get us anywhere. +1 for dityboy.

GA aircraft are just as much as part of the game as HF, F, and MRFs. The game, however, is sorely disjointed between the roles of GA vs. all fighters at times... but again that doesn't discount the need to rate a player on her use of the GA in battle... or even hitting ground targets in fighters; we have all been in a supremacy war where fighters need to dig in and strafe to win a match, making it a significant part of scoring - therefore personal rating - for a win.

How its weighed in the overall personal score is a related argument...

The real issue remains with integrating the ground game more with air-to-air combat in death matches. Moreover, different gaming modes would offer the need for concentrating on different aspects of the game... and bring with each mode an entirely different look at statistics and personal ratings.

Personal ratings are somewhat arbitrary as it stands until more specificity is brought to gaming modes and specializations for all included aircraft types. Until then - and probably thereafter - all aircraft types and target scores count.

"The word "soccer" is actually British. It derives from the game's proper name, association football, with the "soc" bit taken from the word "association" .

The reason it came into popular usage was simple: in the 19th century, football and rugby were both commonly known as football, the former dubbed "association football" and the latter "rugby football". But both phrases are a bit of a mouthful, however, so they were popularly shortened to "soccer" and "rugger" to keep things simple.

Now, your grandad and anybody else over the age of 50 probably knows this instinctively, though younger sports fans might well not since the word "soccer" hasn't been widely used in Britain for three or four decades."

"An early reference to a ball game that was probably football comes from 1280 at Ulgham, Northumberland, England: "Henry... while playing at ball.. ran against David".[3] Football was played in Ireland in 1308, with a documented reference to John McCrocan, a spectator at a "football game" at Newcastle, County Down being charged with accidentally stabbing a player named William Bernard.[4] Another reference to a football game comes in 1321 at Shouldham, Norfolk, England: "[d]uring the game at ball as he kicked the ball, a lay friend of his... ran against him and wounded himself".[3]

Although the accepted etymology of the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. An alternative explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[5] These sports were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports more often enjoyed by aristocrats. In some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking. For example, the English writer William Hone, writing in 1825 or 1826, quotes the social commentator Sir Frederick Morton Eden, regarding a game — which Hone refers to as "Foot-Ball" — played in the parish of Scone, Perthshire:

The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run [sic] with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it.[6] [Emphasis added.]

Conversely, in 1363, King Edward III of England issued a proclamation banning "...handball, football, or hockey; coursing and [edited]-fighting, or other such idle games",[7] suggesting that "football" was in fact being differentiated from games that involved other parts of the body.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records that the first written use of the word "football" used to describe a game was in 1424 in an Act forbidding it. The first written use of the word football to describe the ball was 1486, and that the first use as a verb (hence footballing) was in 1599. Although the OED just indicates it is a compound of foot and ball, the 1486 definition indicates that a ball was of the essence of the game.

The word "soccer" originated as an Oxford "-er" slang abbreviation of "association", and is credited to late nineteenth century English footballer, Charles Wreford-Brown.[8] However, like the William Webb Ellis rugby story, it is believed to be most likely apocryphal.[9]There is also the sometimes-heard variation, "soccer football"."

Having GA aircraft be relevant would be like if the NFL team decided to have a role on the field be designed specifically for someone who was otherwise not skilled enough to do anything relevant, and was just there so he could have fun. Which is ridiculous.

Personal ratings are somewhat arbitrary as it stands - until more specificity is brought to gaming modes and specializations for all included aircraft types. Until then - and probably thereafter - all aircraft types and target scores count.

Which is why I laugh and troll so hard when people want to measure their e-peens against others.

If you die your hair grey you can get a Senior discount at McDonalds but being in the HOF top 100 wont.

"The word "soccer" is actually British. It derives from the game's proper name, association football, with the "soc" bit taken from the word "association" .

The reason it came into popular usage was simple: in the 19th century, football and rugby were both commonly known as football, the former dubbed "association football" and the latter "rugby football". But both phrases are a bit of a mouthful, however, so they were popularly shortened to "soccer" and "rugger" to keep things simple.

Now, your grandad and anybody else over the age of 50 probably knows this instinctively, though younger sports fans might well not since the word "soccer" hasn't been widely used in Britain for three or four decades."

"An early reference to a ball game that was probably football comes from 1280 at Ulgham, Northumberland, England: "Henry... while playing at ball.. ran against David".[3] Football was played in Ireland in 1308, with a documented reference to John McCrocan, a spectator at a "football game" at Newcastle, County Down being charged with accidentally stabbing a player named William Bernard.[4] Another reference to a football game comes in 1321 at Shouldham, Norfolk, England: "[d]uring the game at ball as he kicked the ball, a lay friend of his... ran against him and wounded himself".[3]

Although the accepted etymology of the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. An alternative explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[5] These sports were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports more often enjoyed by aristocrats. In some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking. For example, the English writer William Hone, writing in 1825 or 1826, quotes the social commentator Sir Frederick Morton Eden, regarding a game — which Hone refers to as "Foot-Ball" — played in the parish of Scone, Perthshire:

The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run [sic] with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it.[6] [Emphasis added.]

Conversely, in 1363, King Edward III of England issued a proclamation banning "...handball, football, or hockey; coursing and [edited]-fighting, or other such idle games",[7] suggesting that "football" was in fact being differentiated from games that involved other parts of the body.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records that the first written use of the word "football" used to describe a game was in 1424 in an Act forbidding it. The first written use of the word football to describe the ball was 1486, and that the first use as a verb (hence footballing) was in 1599. Although the OED just indicates it is a compound of foot and ball, the 1486 definition indicates that a ball was of the essence of the game.

The word "soccer" originated as an Oxford "-er" slang abbreviation of "association", and is credited to late nineteenth century English footballer, Charles Wreford-Brown.[8] However, like the William Webb Ellis rugby story, it is believed to be most likely apocryphal.[9]There is also the sometimes-heard variation, "soccer football"."

I didn't know we were having a real conversation about Personal Rating. You will notice most of the players high on the list have substantial ground target damage scores.

Seeing as no one values the ground game, or ever has since head quarters were removed, back when dj used to be "Good" because he'd sneak around the back and take out the headquarters, even then you could argue it wasn't important; anyway, I digressed. Seeing as no one values the ground game, that makes the personal rating system useless, as your stats in a GAA are irrelevant to most.

Back when it was first introduced people were outraged, that players like myself were at the top of the list with 60% win rates. "BUT I WIN 80% of my games at t3!" they all ranted; but, their DPG, and damage to ground targets to games were much lower than mine.

Win rate and k/d ratio are clearly not a huge factor in the rating system. Which are all that matters to most pilots who play this game.

Designers of games will do many different things to make sure all players stay in the right level of challenge v boredom. There are many options available, and often they will use more than one.

Think of it like this: How can a game designer ensure all players have fun in a multiplayer-only game? They cannot control the content, they are fighting other people. They will fight good players, they will fight bad players. Some games will have a matchmaker that places people of similar skill against eachother for this reason. WoWP does not. Instead, they create roles that are easier than others. People with less skill can play a role that requires less skill, so the game isn't boring, or too hard.

World of Warcraft does this by specifically making classes or specs that are easier to play than others.

The problem with this is when due to a balance change, the easiest role becomes the most powerful. This can make a lot of players very angry.. generally because they know how easy the role is. Players like to see results tied into effort put in. When they know the opponent can easily outperform you with less effort, it isn't fun. An example of this would be arcane mage back in 4.0 where they literally had to press only one button over and over to beat anyone in DPS.

Basically, ground attackers are like that. Just there to make bad people feel important.

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.

I am on this list as well, but I have very few games in GA compared to the people around me, I really don't understand why it is held and scored in such high regard in this game. Will I change and start taking 'dirt eaters' more often? Hell no, besides with bots in the equation now, really does the HOF mean anything anymore.

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

I am on this list as well, but I have very few games in GA compared to the people around me, I really don't understand why it is held and scored in such high regard in this game. Will I change and start taking 'dirt eaters' more often? Hell no, besides with bots in the equation now, really does the HOF mean anything anymore.

Has the HOF ever meant anything?

It never meant anything before PR or Bot's because the top players were like Bandet, has beens who played 2 or 3 games a night and logged off to preserve their win rates. Most people you knew they were a good pilot based on your interactions with them, not their stats.

Plenty of guys with amazing stats, that are some of the most awful pilots in this game.

I didn't know we were having a real conversation about Personal Rating. You will notice most of the players high on the list have substantial ground target damage scores.

Seeing as no one values the ground game, or ever has since head quarters were removed, back when dj used to be "Good" because he'd sneak around the back and take out the headquarters, even then you could argue it wasn't important; anyway, I digressed. Seeing as no one values the ground game, that makes the personal rating system useless, as your stats in a GAA are irrelevant to most.

Back when it was first introduced people were outraged, that players like myself were at the top of the list with 60% win rates. "BUT I WIN 80% of my games at t3!" they all ranted; but, their DPG, and damage to ground targets to games were much lower than mine.

Win rate and k/d ratio are clearly not a huge factor in the rating system. Which are all that matters to most pilots who play this game.

Woah what? Headquarters? There was a "king's castle HQ" approach to this at one point?

Bring it back. That alone would up the game with regards to ground game significance. It destroys the notion of ultimate death match, only in the sense it adds more to the cause...

Woah what? Headquarters? There was a "king's castle HQ" approach to this at one point?

Bring it back. That alone would up the game with regards to ground game significance. It destroys the notion of ultimate death match, only in the sense it adds more to the cause...

Yeah, used to have air craft carriers the whole 9. When you destroyed the HQ it only made the enemy AA weaker, it didn't do anything significant. Your 32/32 targets right now are where most of the old HQ's were.